Use of phakic implants for correcting high myopia was discussed in the 1950s and 1960s, but was not implemented because of technological difficulties. It was reintroduced later by various groups, for example, one may refer to an article by P. U. Fechner, G. L. van der Heijde, and J. G. F. Worst entitled “The Correction of Myopia by Lens Implantation Into Phakic Eyes” in Am J Ophthalmol, 107: 659-63, June 1989; an article by S. N. Fedorov, V. K. Zuyev, and E. R. Turnanyan entitled “Intraocular correction of high myopia” in Vestn Oftalmol, 104: 14-16, 1988; and an article by G. Baïkoff and P. Joly entitled “Comparison of Minus Power Anterior Chamber Intraocular Lenses and Myopic Epikeratoplasty in Phakic Eyes” in Refract & Corneal Surg, 6: 252-260, July/August 1990. The use of phakic implants for correcting hyperopia was only envisaged later because most believed that a hyperope's anterior chamber was too shallow for this type of procedure.
More recently, toric implants (for example, toric implants available under the trademarks ICL™ and ARTISAN™) have been proposed to correct astigmatism, for example, one may refer to an article by T. H. Neuhann entitled “International ICL study” in [C. F. Lovisolo and P. M. Pesando, Eds.] “The Implantable Contact Lens (ICL™) and Other Phakic IOLs” F. Canelli, Editore s.r.l., pp. 319-328, 1999; and an article by J. L. Alio, A. Galal, and E. Mulet in “Surgical correction of high degrees of astigmatism with a phakic toric iris-claw intraocular lens” Int Ophthalmol Clin 43(3): pp. 171-81, 2003. In addition, it is only recently that multifocal phakic implants (for example, multifocal phakic implants available under the trademarks NEWLIFE™ and VIVARTE Presbyopic™) are being used to correct presbyopia, for example, one may refer to an article by G. Baïkoff entitled “The GBR/VIVARTE Presbyopic Foldable Phakic IOL” in [J. L. Alio and J. J. Perez-Santonja, Eds.] “Refractive Surgery with Phakic IOLs. Fundamentals and Clinical Practice” Panama, 2004, at p. 207-217. In fact, only the following phakic IOL implants have obtained a CE mark for correction of hyperopia: (a) posterior chamber phakic IOL implants available under the trademarks ICL™ and PRL™ (for example, one may refer to an article by R. Zaldivar, M. J. Davidorf, and S. Oscherow entitled “The Intraocular Contact Lens” in [C. F. Lovisolo and P. M. Pesando, Eds.] “The Implantable Contact Lens (ICL™) and Other Phakic IOLs” F. Canelli, Editore s.r.l., 1999, pp. 339-360 and an article by D. D. Dementiev et al. entitled “Phakic Refractive Lens for Correction of Myopia and Hyperopia” in [S. Agarwal, A. Agarwal, I. G. Pallikaris, T. H. Neuhann, and M. C. Knorz, Eds.] “Refractive Surgery” New Delhi, Jaypee Brothers, 2000, pp. 441-461); (b) iris fixated implants available under the trademarks ARTISAN™ and VERISYSE™ (for example, one may refer to an article by P. U. Fechner, D. Singh and K. Wulff entitled “Iris-claw lens in phakic eyes to correct hyperopia: Preliminary study” in J Cataract Refract Surg, 24: 48-56, 1988); and (c) angle supported implants available under the trademark PHAKIC 6™ (for example, one may refer to an article by S. Purohit et al. entitled “Angle supported Phakic Intraocular lens: The Phakic 6H2” in [D. R. Hardten, R. L. Lindstrom, and E. A. Davis, Eds.] “Phakic Intraocular Lenses. Principles and Practice” Slack Inc., 2004).
The inventor has had experience with spherical ARTISAN™ IOL implants consisting of two-hundred-seventy-three (273) IOL implants being inserted into one-hundred-thirty-seven (137) myopic and one-hundred-thirty-six (136) hyperopic eyes. In this series of procedures, it was observed that nine (9) eyes developed pigment dispersion; a surprisingly high number given that attention had been paid to indications and contraindications recommended by Ophtec (refer to its web site at www.ophtec.com) and identified in an article by R. Saxena, M. Landesz, B. Noordzij, and G. P. M. Luyten entitled “Three-year Follow-up of the Artisan Phakic Intraocular Lens for Hypermetropia” in Ophthalmology, Vol. 110, No. 7, pp. 1391-95, July 2003. These recommendations included having an anterior chamber depth (i.e., a distance between the crystalline lens' anterior pole and the corneal epithelium as measured on a median of a base line joining angle recess to angle recess) of at least 2.9 mm. In addition, the implant procedure was not performed on irises that were “too convex.” After carrying out a biomicroscopic analysis of the ARTISAN™ IOL implants, it appeared that the iris seemed to be sandwiched between the crystalline lens and the implant in the cases of pigment dispersion. As a result, it was concluded that these results were caused by an abnormal forward position of the crystalline lens in these patients, and the shape and convexity of the iris merely provided a qualitative criterion.
In light of the above, there is a need in the art for a method for determining criteria for use in determining whether to perform phakic lens implant procedures to prevent, among other things, development of pigment dispersion in an implanted eye.